How long do you think it took her to look like this?
Options
Replies
-
quiksylver296 wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
I'm GMT. Will that be a problem?quiksylver296 wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Well, off the back of this thread and the article about her training regime linked up-thread, I'm going to save that picture as a screensaver on my phone. I'll look at it in the morning before I try putting weights on the Olympic bar for the first time.
So if this thread has achieved nothing else, I'm sure the local chiropractor will appreciate the custom. Talking of which, er, guys? Can someone be ready to call the chiropractor for me at about 9.25am tomorrow?
What time zone?
Yeah, I'll be sleeping. Don't die, ok?
0 -
Ok. I’ve read through this thread... I keep coming back to it again and again, but help me out here (ladies specifically).
Someone here posted that Eva Marie (the one in the photo) is 5’8” and weighs 125 pounds. Can any women here confirm that this is is a legitimate weight for someone who is that tall and looks like that?
I know comparison is the thief of joy and I DO NOT want to get down to that weight but...
I am 5’8” and am currently 174. I have the strength to do a few unassisted pull-ups (just to give you an idea of my muscle composition because I don’t know my fat% but could guess if you want me to). My goal weight is 165... and I’ve been between 165 and 170 and have been happy there. The lowest I could ever see myself at is 150 but anything lower than that I’d think I’d look either fitness competition-ready or ill.
Really? 125? Can anyone chime in on this? I am not asking to criticize - that weight seems ridiculously low. And she isn’t super shredded.
Let us just note that the publicists of women in the public eye always seem to release figures like 125, 130 and so on. It's never a number like 127.5lbs.
If press releases are to be relied on, celebrity women don't seem to experience menstrual variation either. They're a static 125lbs or whatever all the time. Apparently.
Or could it possibly be that their publicists release a weight that they think the public will like to hear? Nah...7 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Ok. I’ve read through this thread... I keep coming back to it again and again, but help me out here (ladies specifically).
Someone here posted that Eva Marie (the one in the photo) is 5’8” and weighs 125 pounds. Can any women here confirm that this is is a legitimate weight for someone who is that tall and looks like that?
I know comparison is the thief of joy and I DO NOT want to get down to that weight but...
I am 5’8” and am currently 174. I have the strength to do a few unassisted pull-ups (just to give you an idea of my muscle composition because I don’t know my fat% but could guess if you want me to). My goal weight is 165... and I’ve been between 165 and 170 and have been happy there. The lowest I could ever see myself at is 150 but anything lower than that I’d think I’d look either fitness competition-ready or ill.
Really? 125? Can anyone chime in on this? I am not asking to criticize - that weight seems ridiculously low. And she isn’t super shredded.
Let us just note that the publicists of women in the public eye always seem to release figures like 125, 130 and so on. It's never a number like 127.5lbs.
If press releases are to be relied on, celebrity women don't seem to experience menstrual variation either. They're a static 125lbs or whatever all the time. Apparently.
Or could it possibly be that their publicists release a weight that they think the public will like to hear? Nah...
I was just chiming in to say, I had posted that based on the stats available out on the interwebs, and as we know, the interwebs NEVER lie, nor do people ever misrepresent their weight...right?
I thought she looked heavier too, but just figured it was the tricky camera or something. However, after you asked this, I looked up a 5'8" Victoria's Secret model (she is "petite" lol), Sara Sampaio, and at 119# she just looks extremely thin. Gorgeous, but extremely thin and ephemeral; not muscled. To me, Eva Marie looks gorgeous, solid and strong...like she is more in the 140 to 150# range and could take you down. But it is hard to say--everyone carries their weight differently.0 -
I looked up some her of old modeling pics. She was *significantly* thinner at one point and not nearly as muscled. Maybe her stated weight is a holdover from those days.3
-
French_Peasant wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Ok. I’ve read through this thread... I keep coming back to it again and again, but help me out here (ladies specifically).
Someone here posted that Eva Marie (the one in the photo) is 5’8” and weighs 125 pounds. Can any women here confirm that this is is a legitimate weight for someone who is that tall and looks like that?
I know comparison is the thief of joy and I DO NOT want to get down to that weight but...
I am 5’8” and am currently 174. I have the strength to do a few unassisted pull-ups (just to give you an idea of my muscle composition because I don’t know my fat% but could guess if you want me to). My goal weight is 165... and I’ve been between 165 and 170 and have been happy there. The lowest I could ever see myself at is 150 but anything lower than that I’d think I’d look either fitness competition-ready or ill.
Really? 125? Can anyone chime in on this? I am not asking to criticize - that weight seems ridiculously low. And she isn’t super shredded.
Let us just note that the publicists of women in the public eye always seem to release figures like 125, 130 and so on. It's never a number like 127.5lbs.
If press releases are to be relied on, celebrity women don't seem to experience menstrual variation either. They're a static 125lbs or whatever all the time. Apparently.
Or could it possibly be that their publicists release a weight that they think the public will like to hear? Nah...
I was just chiming in to say, I had posted that based on the stats available out on the interwebs, and as we know, the interwebs NEVER lie, nor do people ever misrepresent their weight...right?
I thought she looked heavier too, but just figured it was the tricky camera or something. However, after you asked this, I looked up a 5'8" Victoria's Secret model (she is "petite" lol), Sara Sampaio, and at 119# she just looks extremely thin. Gorgeous, but extremely thin and ephemeral; not muscled. To me, Eva Marie looks gorgeous, solid and strong...like she is more in the 140 to 150# range and could take you down. But it is hard to say--everyone carries their weight differently.
I think Eva Marie look fabulous in that shot; I just can’t see how the 125 is realistic. If she was thin like a model (as in the VS one you mention), fine. But with muscle mass?
I just can’t see myself weighing in that low and being strong. And I agree, everyone carries weight different!
Thanks to everyone who has commented about this. The 125 versus her musculature in the photo has been bugging me for days... but only in a mildly obsessive way. 😬
2 -
French_Peasant wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Ok. I’ve read through this thread... I keep coming back to it again and again, but help me out here (ladies specifically).
Someone here posted that Eva Marie (the one in the photo) is 5’8” and weighs 125 pounds. Can any women here confirm that this is is a legitimate weight for someone who is that tall and looks like that?
I know comparison is the thief of joy and I DO NOT want to get down to that weight but...
I am 5’8” and am currently 174. I have the strength to do a few unassisted pull-ups (just to give you an idea of my muscle composition because I don’t know my fat% but could guess if you want me to). My goal weight is 165... and I’ve been between 165 and 170 and have been happy there. The lowest I could ever see myself at is 150 but anything lower than that I’d think I’d look either fitness competition-ready or ill.
Really? 125? Can anyone chime in on this? I am not asking to criticize - that weight seems ridiculously low. And she isn’t super shredded.
Let us just note that the publicists of women in the public eye always seem to release figures like 125, 130 and so on. It's never a number like 127.5lbs.
If press releases are to be relied on, celebrity women don't seem to experience menstrual variation either. They're a static 125lbs or whatever all the time. Apparently.
Or could it possibly be that their publicists release a weight that they think the public will like to hear? Nah...
I was just chiming in to say, I had posted that based on the stats available out on the interwebs, and as we know, the interwebs NEVER lie, nor do people ever misrepresent their weight...right?
I thought she looked heavier too, but just figured it was the tricky camera or something. However, after you asked this, I looked up a 5'8" Victoria's Secret model (she is "petite" lol), Sara Sampaio, and at 119# she just looks extremely thin. Gorgeous, but extremely thin and ephemeral; not muscled. To me, Eva Marie looks gorgeous, solid and strong...like she is more in the 140 to 150# range and could take you down. But it is hard to say--everyone carries their weight differently.
I think Eva Marie look fabulous in that shot; I just can’t see how the 125 is realistic. If she was thin like a model (as in the VS one you mention), fine. But with muscle mass?
I just can’t see myself weighing in that low and being strong. And I agree, everyone carries weight different!
Thanks to everyone who has commented about this. The 125 versus her musculature in the photo has been bugging me for days... but only in a mildly obsessive way. 😬
I found it dubious too. Probably an older number or just a publicized one like others said. Maybe not.
I can see why you would question it.1 -
Uhm I am 5'1 and hover between 122 and 127 (yea i know) and i still look pretty lean. If she was 125, she would be a broom stick at that height!! #icallbullshit4
-
Ok. I’ve read through this thread... I keep coming back to it again and again, but help me out here (ladies specifically).
Someone here posted that Eva Marie (the one in the photo) is 5’8” and weighs 125 pounds. Can any women here confirm that this is is a legitimate weight for someone who is that tall and looks like that?
I know comparison is the thief of joy and I DO NOT want to get down to that weight but...
I am 5’8” and am currently 174. I have the strength to do a few unassisted pull-ups (just to give you an idea of my muscle composition because I don’t know my fat% but could guess if you want me to). My goal weight is 165... and I’ve been between 165 and 170 and have been happy there. The lowest I could ever see myself at is 150 but anything lower than that I’d think I’d look either fitness competition-ready or ill.
Really? 125? Can anyone chime in on this? I am not asking to criticize - that weight seems ridiculously low. And she isn’t super shredded.
My profile pic is 5'5" at 120 lbs and 15%bf.1 -
gladys0919 wrote: »Uhm I am 5'1 and hover between 122 and 127 (yea i know) and i still look pretty lean. If she was 125, she would be a broom stick at that height!! #icallbullshit
Why *kitten*? I posted a photo of a woman who is 5'9" and weighing in for a fight in the flyweight division (125lbs). The fighters can weigh up to 126lbs for non-title fights, which this would have been as neither of those ladies has ever held the belt, so she is no more than 126lbs as pictured.1 -
To me, the UFC fighters look less muscled and more slender than Eva Marie does in the OP.born_of_fire74 wrote: »gladys0919 wrote: »Uhm I am 5'1 and hover between 122 and 127 (yea i know) and i still look pretty lean. If she was 125, she would be a broom stick at that height!! #icallbullshit
Why *kitten*? I posted a photo of a woman who is 5'9" and weighing in for a fight in the flyweight division (125lbs). The fighters can weigh up to 126lbs for non-title fights, which this would have been as neither of those ladies has ever held the belt, so she is no more than 126lbs as pictured.
But Eva Marie is also carefully lit and angled in that shot, and the UFC athletes aren't.
0 -
Y'know, I feel pretty uncomfortable with these conversations where women start in on "she must be lying about her weight because I'd be a skeleton" or "no way she has muscles at that weight". You know you, and that's it. Build matters.
At BMI 19.3, I was thinner than a lot of women would prefer to be. That's fine for me, and for them - our business, not others' business.
But build matters, preference matters. At that weight (5'5", 116), I'm lower than my goal weight, but I'm neither a "skeleton" nor completely lacking in muscle. I'm not claiming to be one of our beautiful strength stars here on MFP, whom I admire but am too frikkin lazy to emulate. But, once I lost weight, I was - to my surprise - strong enough to get one full chin-up (not pull-up), without training for it. Yeah, not that impressive in the abstract, but it's more than most 60 year old women can do, I think. I'm strong enough to row for hours, or cycle for hours: Not a waif. Not that lean at BMI 19.3 either. Just built with hips like a 14-year-old boy, and no breasts.born_of_fire74 wrote: »gladys0919 wrote: »Uhm I am 5'1 and hover between 122 and 127 (yea i know) and i still look pretty lean. If she was 125, she would be a broom stick at that height!! #icallbullshit
Why *kitten*? I posted a photo of a woman who is 5'9" and weighing in for a fight in the flyweight division (125lbs). The fighters can weigh up to 126lbs for non-title fights, which this would have been as neither of those ladies has ever held the belt, so she is no more than 126lbs as pictured.
Totally this ^^^^^. (I'd point out that she may've cut water to make weight, but still ).
Why in the heck do we need to trash other women's representations about their weight . . . even if they're false? Does it make us feel better in some way? Why?10 -
Y'know, I feel pretty uncomfortable with these conversations where women start in on "she must be lying about her weight because I'd be a skeleton" or "no way she has muscles at that weight". You know you, and that's it. Build matters.
At BMI 19.3, I was thinner than a lot of women would prefer to be. That's fine for me, and for them - our business, not others' business.
But build matters, preference matters. At that weight (5'5", 116), I'm lower than my goal weight, but I'm neither a "skeleton" nor completely lacking in muscle. I'm not claiming to be one of our beautiful strength stars here on MFP, whom I admire but am too frikkin lazy to emulate. But, once I lost weight, I was - to my surprise - strong enough to get one full chin-up (not pull-up), without training for it. Yeah, not that impressive in the abstract, but it's more than most 60 year old women can do, I think. I'm strong enough to row for hours, or cycle for hours: Not a waif. Not that lean at BMI 19.3 either. Just built with hips like a 14-year-old boy, and no breasts.born_of_fire74 wrote: »gladys0919 wrote: »Uhm I am 5'1 and hover between 122 and 127 (yea i know) and i still look pretty lean. If she was 125, she would be a broom stick at that height!! #icallbullshit
Why *kitten*? I posted a photo of a woman who is 5'9" and weighing in for a fight in the flyweight division (125lbs). The fighters can weigh up to 126lbs for non-title fights, which this would have been as neither of those ladies has ever held the belt, so she is no more than 126lbs as pictured.
Totally this ^^^^^. (I'd point out that she may've cut water to make weight, but still ).
Why in the heck do we need to trash other women's representations about their weight . . . even if they're false? Does it make us feel better in some way? Why?
Men do it too.
Regarding women though, my youngest has heard some of the rudest comments, and it took her years to overcome her poor image of herself. She's 5'1" and about 140lbs and strong as the proverbial ox. She thought she was fat, and several "friends" contributed to that.
She no longer associates with those folks.
6 -
Y'know, I feel pretty uncomfortable with these conversations where women start in on "she must be lying about her weight because I'd be a skeleton" or "no way she has muscles at that weight". You know you, and that's it. Build matters.
At BMI 19.3, I was thinner than a lot of women would prefer to be. That's fine for me, and for them - our business, not others' business.
But build matters, preference matters. At that weight (5'5", 116), I'm lower than my goal weight, but I'm neither a "skeleton" nor completely lacking in muscle. I'm not claiming to be one of our beautiful strength stars here on MFP, whom I admire but am too frikkin lazy to emulate. But, once I lost weight, I was - to my surprise - strong enough to get one full chin-up (not pull-up), without training for it. Yeah, not that impressive in the abstract, but it's more than most 60 year old women can do, I think. I'm strong enough to row for hours, or cycle for hours: Not a waif. Not that lean at BMI 19.3 either. Just built with hips like a 14-year-old boy, and no breasts.born_of_fire74 wrote: »gladys0919 wrote: »Uhm I am 5'1 and hover between 122 and 127 (yea i know) and i still look pretty lean. If she was 125, she would be a broom stick at that height!! #icallbullshit
Why *kitten*? I posted a photo of a woman who is 5'9" and weighing in for a fight in the flyweight division (125lbs). The fighters can weigh up to 126lbs for non-title fights, which this would have been as neither of those ladies has ever held the belt, so she is no more than 126lbs as pictured.
Totally this ^^^^^. (I'd point out that she may've cut water to make weight, but still ).
Why in the heck do we need to trash other women's representations about their weight . . . even if they're false? Does it make us feel better in some way? Why?
I didn't really read that as trashing her for the weight but more of someone sincerely asking. Aspiring to a certain physique required asking questions like that to see what's real and what's not. I would be simply curious to know what her build, bf, and lean mass came to simply from an intellectual standpoint. She's lovely regardless.6 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
To me, the UFC fighters look less muscled and more slender than Eva Marie does in the OP.born_of_fire74 wrote: »gladys0919 wrote: »Uhm I am 5'1 and hover between 122 and 127 (yea i know) and i still look pretty lean. If she was 125, she would be a broom stick at that height!! #icallbullshit
Why *kitten*? I posted a photo of a woman who is 5'9" and weighing in for a fight in the flyweight division (125lbs). The fighters can weigh up to 126lbs for non-title fights, which this would have been as neither of those ladies has ever held the belt, so she is no more than 126lbs as pictured.
But Eva Marie is also carefully lit and angled in that shot, and the UFC athletes aren't.
There's almost no way that Eva Marie is more muscular than Liz Carmouche. She is an absolute beast (and I mean that in a positive way). She's also only 5'6" though. Sara McMann and Cris Cyborg are maybe more muscled than Liz, maybe. They fight in higher weight classes though, 135lbs and 145lbs respectively.0 -
Y'know, I feel pretty uncomfortable with these conversations where women start in on "she must be lying about her weight because I'd be a skeleton" or "no way she has muscles at that weight". You know you, and that's it. Build matters.
At BMI 19.3, I was thinner than a lot of women would prefer to be. That's fine for me, and for them - our business, not others' business.
But build matters, preference matters. At that weight (5'5", 116), I'm lower than my goal weight, but I'm neither a "skeleton" nor completely lacking in muscle. I'm not claiming to be one of our beautiful strength stars here on MFP, whom I admire but am too frikkin lazy to emulate. But, once I lost weight, I was - to my surprise - strong enough to get one full chin-up (not pull-up), without training for it. Yeah, not that impressive in the abstract, but it's more than most 60 year old women can do, I think. I'm strong enough to row for hours, or cycle for hours: Not a waif. Not that lean at BMI 19.3 either. Just built with hips like a 14-year-old boy, and no breasts.born_of_fire74 wrote: »gladys0919 wrote: »Uhm I am 5'1 and hover between 122 and 127 (yea i know) and i still look pretty lean. If she was 125, she would be a broom stick at that height!! #icallbullshit
Why *kitten*? I posted a photo of a woman who is 5'9" and weighing in for a fight in the flyweight division (125lbs). The fighters can weigh up to 126lbs for non-title fights, which this would have been as neither of those ladies has ever held the belt, so she is no more than 126lbs as pictured.
Totally this ^^^^^. (I'd point out that she may've cut water to make weight, but still ).
Why in the heck do we need to trash other women's representations about their weight . . . even if they're false? Does it make us feel better in some way? Why?
I agree is unlikely that either of those fighters walk around at 125lbs but women are less capable of cutting weight to make a lower weight class than men are. Some men drop 40lbs(!!!) to make weigh ins. Women tend toward 10lbs tops.
I chose the weigh in photo though because Chookagian is guaranteed to be no more than 126lbs in that photo.1 -
Y'know, I feel pretty uncomfortable with these conversations where women start in on "she must be lying about her weight because I'd be a skeleton" or "no way she has muscles at that weight". You know you, and that's it. Build matters.
At BMI 19.3, I was thinner than a lot of women would prefer to be. That's fine for me, and for them - our business, not others' business.
But build matters, preference matters. At that weight (5'5", 116), I'm lower than my goal weight, but I'm neither a "skeleton" nor completely lacking in muscle. I'm not claiming to be one of our beautiful strength stars here on MFP, whom I admire but am too frikkin lazy to emulate. But, once I lost weight, I was - to my surprise - strong enough to get one full chin-up (not pull-up), without training for it. Yeah, not that impressive in the abstract, but it's more than most 60 year old women can do, I think. I'm strong enough to row for hours, or cycle for hours: Not a waif. Not that lean at BMI 19.3 either. Just built with hips like a 14-year-old boy, and no breasts.born_of_fire74 wrote: »gladys0919 wrote: »Uhm I am 5'1 and hover between 122 and 127 (yea i know) and i still look pretty lean. If she was 125, she would be a broom stick at that height!! #icallbullshit
Why *kitten*? I posted a photo of a woman who is 5'9" and weighing in for a fight in the flyweight division (125lbs). The fighters can weigh up to 126lbs for non-title fights, which this would have been as neither of those ladies has ever held the belt, so she is no more than 126lbs as pictured.
Totally this ^^^^^. (I'd point out that she may've cut water to make weight, but still ).
Why in the heck do we need to trash other women's representations about their weight . . . even if they're false? Does it make us feel better in some way? Why?
I didn't really read that as trashing her for the weight but more of someone sincerely asking. Aspiring to a certain physique required asking questions like that to see what's real and what's not. I would be simply curious to know what her build, bf, and lean mass came to simply from an intellectual standpoint. She's lovely regardless.
I have trouble seeing statements like "I call BS", terms like "broom stick", and "can’t see . . . weighing in that low and being strong."** as "sincerely asking". Maybe it's just me.
** Yeah, OK, so that last quote was unfairly de-contextualized. I admit it. I didn't like where this was heading. 4 -
I wasn't a stick at 5'8 125 lbs. It's within the normal BMI range so I don't get the comments people are making.3
-
Y'know, I feel pretty uncomfortable with these conversations where women start in on "she must be lying about her weight because I'd be a skeleton" or "no way she has muscles at that weight". You know you, and that's it. Build matters.
At BMI 19.3, I was thinner than a lot of women would prefer to be. That's fine for me, and for them - our business, not others' business.
But build matters, preference matters. At that weight (5'5", 116), I'm lower than my goal weight, but I'm neither a "skeleton" nor completely lacking in muscle. I'm not claiming to be one of our beautiful strength stars here on MFP, whom I admire but am too frikkin lazy to emulate. But, once I lost weight, I was - to my surprise - strong enough to get one full chin-up (not pull-up), without training for it. Yeah, not that impressive in the abstract, but it's more than most 60 year old women can do, I think. I'm strong enough to row for hours, or cycle for hours: Not a waif. Not that lean at BMI 19.3 either. Just built with hips like a 14-year-old boy, and no breasts.born_of_fire74 wrote: »gladys0919 wrote: »Uhm I am 5'1 and hover between 122 and 127 (yea i know) and i still look pretty lean. If she was 125, she would be a broom stick at that height!! #icallbullshit
Why *kitten*? I posted a photo of a woman who is 5'9" and weighing in for a fight in the flyweight division (125lbs). The fighters can weigh up to 126lbs for non-title fights, which this would have been as neither of those ladies has ever held the belt, so she is no more than 126lbs as pictured.
Totally this ^^^^^. (I'd point out that she may've cut water to make weight, but still ).
Why in the heck do we need to trash other women's representations about their weight . . . even if they're false? Does it make us feel better in some way? Why?
I didn't really read that as trashing her for the weight but more of someone sincerely asking. Aspiring to a certain physique required asking questions like that to see what's real and what's not. I would be simply curious to know what her build, bf, and lean mass came to simply from an intellectual standpoint. She's lovely regardless.
I have trouble seeing statements like "I call BS", terms like "broom stick", and "can’t see . . . weighing in that low and being strong."** as "sincerely asking". Maybe it's just me.
** Yeah, OK, so that last quote was unfairly de-contextualized. I admit it. I didn't like where this was heading.
I, mistakenly, thought you were referring to the poster who originally questioned it ... Rosiorama. She seemed sincere.2 -
Ah, hang on. WWE is the fictionalised thing without weightclasses isn't it? Have I got that right?born_of_fire74 wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
To me, the UFC fighters look less muscled and more slender than Eva Marie does in the OP.born_of_fire74 wrote: »gladys0919 wrote: »Uhm I am 5'1 and hover between 122 and 127 (yea i know) and i still look pretty lean. If she was 125, she would be a broom stick at that height!! #icallbullshit
Why *kitten*? I posted a photo of a woman who is 5'9" and weighing in for a fight in the flyweight division (125lbs). The fighters can weigh up to 126lbs for non-title fights, which this would have been as neither of those ladies has ever held the belt, so she is no more than 126lbs as pictured.
But Eva Marie is also carefully lit and angled in that shot, and the UFC athletes aren't.
There's almost no way that Eva Marie is more muscular than Liz Carmouche. She is an absolute beast (and I mean that in a positive way). She's also only 5'6" though. Sara McMann and Cris Cyborg are maybe more muscled than Liz, maybe. They fight in higher weight classes though, 135lbs and 145lbs respectively.
So she could be any weight for the fights so long as she still looked hot on TV.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions